Skip to main content
Log in

Are chemical barriers necessary for evolution of butterfly-plant associations?

  • Original Papers
  • Published:
Oecologia Aims and scope Submit manuscript

Summary

The association between heliconiine butterflies and Passion flower vines is composed of three or more subassociations, in which each Heliconius species group feeds on a different Passiflora subgenus. The relationships are consistent with the adaptive zone hypothesis of Ehrlich and Raven, which would suggest that (1) species of the subgenus Plectostemma proliferated as a result of chemical barriers to herbivory, which created a herbivore-free adaptive zone in which speciation and diversification took place, and (2) species of the H. erato-charitonia group overcame these barriers and entered a competitor-free adaptive zone, in which they proliferated and speciated with those plants as hosts. The hypothesis that plant secondary chemicals were responsible for creating such barriers to herbivory was tested using heliconiine species as bioassays, in which reduced growth rates indicated presence of chemical barriers to feeding. Contrary to expectation, plants of the subgenus Plectostemma showed little or no chemical defense against any species of heliconiine caterpillar. In contrast many plants of the “primitive” subgenus Granadilla possessed significant chemical barriers against herbivory by heliconiine larvae, excepting those species in the H. numata-melpomene species group. I concluded that chemical barriers to feeding were not responsible for proliferation and diversification in the subgenus Plectostemma, nor did chemicals create a competitor-free “adaptive zone” in which the H. erato-charitonia species-group could proliferate and speciate. Chemical barriers may have been important in the evolution of the subgenus Granadilla-heliconiine association. I suggest that plant allelochemics are only one of many possible barriers to herbivory which can help create “adaptive zones” for plants and their herbivores, and that the patterns of butterfly foodplant specialization discussed by Ehrlich and Raven (1964) are not necessarily the result of biochemical adaptation and counteradaptation.

This is a preview of subscription content, log in via an institution to check access.

Access this article

Price excludes VAT (USA)
Tax calculation will be finalised during checkout.

Instant access to the full article PDF.

Similar content being viewed by others

References

  • Atsatt PR, O'Dowd DJ (1976) Plant defense guilds. Science 193:24–29

    Google Scholar 

  • Benson WW, Brown KS, Gilbert LE (1976) Coevolution of plants and herbivores: Passion flower butterflies. Evolution 29:659–680

    Google Scholar 

  • Berenbaum M (1983) Coumarins and caterpillars: A case for coevolution. Evolution 37:163–178

    Google Scholar 

  • Boggs CA, Smiley JT, Gilbert LE (1981) Patterns of pollen exploitation by Heliconius butterflies. Oecologia (Berlin) 48:284–289

    Google Scholar 

  • Brown KS (1981) The biology of Heliconius and related genera. Ann Rev Entomol 26:427–456

    Google Scholar 

  • Brues, CT (1924) The specificity of food plants in the evolution of phytophagous insects. Amer Nat 58:127–144

    Google Scholar 

  • Ehrlich PR, Raven PH (1964) Butterflies and plants: A study in coevolution. Evolution 18:586–608

    Google Scholar 

  • Erickson JM, Feeny PP (1974) Sinigrin, a chemical barrier to larvae of the black swallowtail butterfly Papilio polyxenes. Ecology 55:103–111

    Google Scholar 

  • Feeny PP (1976) Plant apparency and chemical defense. In: Biochemical interaction between plants and insects. Wallace J, Mansell R (eds) Recent Advances in Phytochemistry 10:1–40

  • Futuyma DJ, Slatkin M (1983) Coevolution. Sinauer, Sunderland, Mass

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert LE (1971) Butterfly-plant coevolution: Has Passiflora adenopoda won the selectional race with heliconiine butterflies? Science 172:585–586

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert LE (1975) Ecological consequences of a coevolved mutualism between butterflies and plants. In: Coevolution of Animals and Plants, Gilbert LE, Raven PH (eds) U. Texas Press, Austin and London, pp 108–140

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert LE, Raven PH (1975) Coevolution of animals and plants. Univ. of Texas Press, Austin, Texas

    Google Scholar 

  • Gilbert LE, Singer MC (1975) Butterfly Ecology. Ann Rev Ecol & Syst 6:365–397

    Google Scholar 

  • Hull CH, Nie NH (1981) SPSS Update 7–9. McGraw-Hill, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Killip EP (1939) American Passifloraceae. Field Mus Nat Hist, Botany 19:1–400

    Google Scholar 

  • Janzen D (1982) Erblichia adorata Seem. (Turneraceae) is a larval host plant of Eueides procula vulgiformis Butler and Druce (Nymphalidae-Heliconiini) in Santa Rosa National Park. J Lepid Soc 37:70–78

    Google Scholar 

  • Rosenthal G, Janzen DH (1979) Herbivores: Their interaction with secondary metabolites. Academic Press, N.Y.

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiley JT (1978 a) Plant chemistry and the evolution of host specificity New evidence from Heliconius and Passiflora. Science 201:745–747

    Google Scholar 

  • Smiley JT (1978 b) The host plant ecology of Heliconius butterflies in Northeastern Costa Rica. Ph. Dissertation, University of Texas at Austin, Austin, Texas

    Google Scholar 

  • Sokal RR, Rohlf FJ (1969) Biometry. Freeman and Co. San Francisco

    Google Scholar 

Download references

Author information

Authors and Affiliations

Authors

Rights and permissions

Reprints and permissions

About this article

Cite this article

Smiley, J.T. Are chemical barriers necessary for evolution of butterfly-plant associations?. Oecologia 65, 580–583 (1985). https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379676

Download citation

  • Received:

  • Issue Date:

  • DOI: https://doi.org/10.1007/BF00379676

Keywords

Navigation